Friday, January 13, 2012

Lunartic

With Andrew Bolt still on holiday, Bolt obsessed Crikey media analyst Jeremy Sear searches the media to find an earth-shatteringly important matter of contention: did NASA first deliver humans to the moon in 1968 (the Apollo 8 lunar orbit mission) or 1969 (the Apollo 11 moon landing)?

Reliably wrong, Jeremy insists 1969 is the correct answer. By the way, the offending Age article is about a Saturn V rocket built entirely of Lego. Now there's a story worth analyzing.

Just demonstrating to the paltry few who bother reading this blog, Uneducated Flatus, that while you hurl around unfounded insults like "illiterate" and "half-wit", your own command of English grammar is negligible at best. There is nothing like a man (stretching the term in your case) who accuses others of what he is himself guilty plainly guilty of.

Oh I get it. Because I used the phrase 'your honour', I must work in the legal profession.Which means I must be a lawyer.Which means I must be Jeremy Sear.

Wrong on all three counts. In fact the only thing this conclusively proves is your own obsession with Sear.

Quite frankly, for the most part I find Sear's blogging to be tedious and uninspiring. What drives you febrile wingnuts to obsess over Sear, think every second commenter on the Internet is him, and raid his social media so you publish his pictures on your own blogs?

It is just plain weird and you should probably seek some kind of Sear-cleansing therapy.

You seem to have made many specific assumptions from one word and zero evidence, as you put it.

I have formed conclusions and extrapolated information about you, based on what you have written here.

If you had any brains, you'd be able to do the same about me. But you cannot, so you resort to rank insults and imagined claims of illiteracy, incompetence and inferiority. In other words, you're utterly clueless so just make stuff up.

As for the social media - looks like it's been put out there for all to see. That's the purpose right?

There is nothing illegal about accessing or linking to someone's public images. But when you do so to invite ridicule or personal abuse of the subject, there are some serious doubts about your moral compass.

I am not Superman, Flatus, just better than you. Not a difficult achievement in and of itself.

Get a thicker skin or don't put it up, if said people don't want attention.

I didn't 'put it up' and I don't speak for those who did. I'm more interested in the motives and agenda of someone who runs an apparently political blog, then posts links to these images with no apparent reason, other than to invite derogatory commentary. From the likes of you, chiefly.